On 11/12/2012 10:13 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> 2012/11/12 Asmus Freytag <asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com
> <mailto:asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com>>
>
> On 11/11/2012 9:26 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>> 2012/11/12 Asmus Freytag <asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com
>> <mailto:asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com>>
>>
>>
>> However, the half-filled, five pointed stars are
>> "garden-variety" type symbols, and, as I keep pointing out,
>> they absolutely fall within the scope of geometrical symbols
>> for which there is ample precedent supporting both plain text
>> usage as well as a standardized encoding.
>>
>>
>> I oppose your argument of "garden-variety" type symbols because
>> consistancy of this usge with a defined pattern is not
>> demonstated, included in the precise domain where they are found.
> That does not mean that it's not important to show that there is
> "at least one" usage for that that is consistent with plain-text.
>
>
> That's exactly what I meant. There must be at least one precise domain
> where this usage is consistent.
No, there's no need for usage to be "consistent". The only requirement
is that it occurs.
Unicode is not designed to be in the business of what people write, only
in the business of enumerating the basis elements (written signs) needed
for that communication.
In some cases, a wide variety of shapes will be understood to represent
a single written sign, with the alternation being "stylistic". That's
the case you have with letters and fonts.
In other cases, it is not possible to a-priori, or reliably, or ever to
decide what variance in shape can legitimately happen under the umbrella
of a single written sign (as conventionally understood).
At some point, all you have to go on is the shape itself.
Whether an arrow is barbed or not, single or double stroked, filled or
outlined makes no difference in its basic identification as "arrow" and
no difference at all when it is used to merely point. However, different
contexts (mathematics for one) have ascribed conventional meanings to
some of the various appearances.
In order to make the case for encoding them, the primary task is to show
that they can and will be used in contrast. If that can be shown, the
details of what each style represents is of lesser importance. Those
details come into play when the use is not so much one that is in
contrast with the "generic" usage, but one where a convention
arbitrarily requires a specific shape - and followers of that convention
will not recognize a generic substitute as being the particular written
sign in question.
A./
> I certainly NOT meant ONE AND ONLY ONE. So all the rest about the (for
> example) use of the full stop for various purposes is not relevant: at
> least some of these uses are consistent in their domain.
>
> But for now we've not seen any one for the half stars, and I don't
> know why you think they will be more important to encode than the
> various other representations of ratings or similar concepts like
> gauges which largely overwhelm in all these many variants seen the
> particular cases where an half star MAY very infrequently be used
> without any consistency, as if it was a sort of "standard" (the
> purpose of Encoding in Unicode is to endorse such existant standard or
> norm, either national or international, or adopted by a measurable
> community over some large enough period, and not in isolated
> documents, whatever their medium, electronic or physical).
>
Received on Mon Nov 12 2012 - 14:41:12 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Nov 12 2012 - 14:41:13 CST